Where Do The Candidates Stand On Issues of Science?
Posted by Catherine Morgan on February 18, 2008
Where Do The Candidates Stand on Issues of Science? — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
It seems to me, the Bush administration has been a serious thorn in the side of science over the last seven years. That’s why it is so important for us to understand where our current presidential candidates stand on issues of science. What would they do about the environment? Stem Cell research? Global Warming? Well, we know a little more after science advisors for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, debated at the Annual Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Saturday.
From AFP – Clinton, Obama science advisors showcase their candidates
Clinton and Obama propose doubling the federal budget for basic scientific research over a period of five years; investing heavily in technology to produce next-generation biofuels; and advancing the fight against global warming.
They also want to remove what they say are the current ideological constraints on science, to return it to its rightful place in government policies.
“Hillary Clinton will end this assault on science,” said Kalil, who served as deputy assistant for technology and economic policy under former president Bill Clinton.
“She knows that innovation is critical for economic growth and high paying jobs,” he added, after outlining Hillary Clinton’s science program on a giant graph.
Ross limited himself to a simple oral presentation that was less structured as he invited members of the audience to visit Obama’s Internet site to get more details about his program.
Barack Obama’s “plan” for science was just posted on his campaign website issues page. The statement is short and generic at best, but he has also posted a three page fact sheet that gives more detail about his overall view. They call the fact sheet a plan on the issues page, but it is really a rather odd combination of statements about his record on the issues and statements about what he supports rather than a real top down plan for science. Overall, the document is very positive for science, but it lacks enough detail for any kind of substantive assessment of what he would do for science as President.
Clinton on Science – Speech from Carnegie Institution for Science
Instead of leading the world in oil imports, we can lead in green technology exports. The country that split the atom can end our dependence on foreign oil and launch an energy revolution. We can call it Energy 2.0 because we’ve got everything it takes except we have not organized ourselves to make it happen.
When science is politicized, when the truth is subjugated by ideology, it’s worse than wrong — it’s dangerous. Ending the war on science and once again valuing the ever-skeptical but always hopeful scientific enterprise is about more than our economy. It’s about more than our security. It is about our democracy.
Also See:
Making Science a Presidential Priority
Physics Today – Where Do They Stand On Science?
